OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 29, 2014, 04:58:11 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What's up with some in ROCOR over the OCA?  (Read 8994 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« on: April 28, 2009, 07:46:19 AM »

Origin: Metropolitan Jonah issues statement on recent sermon

-- Nebelpfade
(Acting on behalf of Pravoslavbob and Cleveland)


Quote
Quote
Looks like we have an overlap of territory yet the MP recognizes two Metropolitans of the same territory. 


No, just one.  Met. Jonah.

No?  So you are saying that Pat. Kirill does not recognize Met. Hilarion of Eastern America and New York? 

Quote
Quote
Quote
As to the teeth of the OCA autocephaly, it is hard to see any when even Met. Jonah does not expect other jurisdictions to recognize it.   In fact, he is willing to see a NEW organization formed as a solution to unity in America.   

He said, "It is imperative for us to come together. Not for all the other churches, the Antiochians and the Serbians and the Bulgarians and the Romanians and everyone, to join the OCA, but to come together in a new organization of Orthodoxy in North American that brings us all together as one Church, even just pulling together all our existing organizations so that all the bishops sit on one Synod, so that all the Metropolitans get together on a special Synod or something like that."

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:Gc6xcnh8JdUJ:www.dosoca.org/files/Pan-orthodox-talk-4_7_09.pdf+Metropolitan+jonah+dallas+transcript+%22Leave+it+alone%22&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Why isn't Met. Jonah simply demaning everyone else to recognize OCA autocephaly and come under her omopor as the rightful American Church, if that is what they are?


Economia.

The bigger point here is that Met. Jonah, by his statements, is quite open to forming a NEW organization and not demanding OCA autocephaly be recognized.  That is quite an economy from the primate of the OCA yet you assert that economia is untenable concerning ROCOR's non-recognition of autocephaly?  It appears that some have more fervor over Orthodox recognition of OCA autocephaly then Met. Jonah himself.   

Quote
Irish Hermit said: But one thing you can be certain of is that neither Metropolitan Laurus nor Metropolitan Hilarion told Patriarch Alexey that Moscow was guilty of an uncanonical Act when it gave autonomy to the Orthodox Church in America and that the Russian Church Abroad refuses to accept the Act of Autonomy.
 
Have you asked your bishop if he has been to Moscow, participated in the Russian Synod and said this to the Patriarch and the Holy Synod?   Have ANY ROCA bishops said this to Moscow?

Does your parish priest not commemorate the Patriarch as the supreme authority of the Russian Church Abroad?   He commemorates him as  "our Great Lord and Father" five times in the course of the Liturgy?   

So from where does anyone in the Russian Church Abroad derive the authority to challenge the authority of Patriarch and the Holy Synod: "The OCA Tomos of Autonomy is uncanonical.  Your Holiness has made a grave mistake.  We agree with the Church of Constantinople that you acted uncanonically and we, like the mouse that roared, do not recognise your authority in this matter."


The contention does not have to be framed the way you are framing it.  Fr. Alexander Lebedeff, a key negotiator in the MP/ROCOR act of communion, has explained all of this in great detail.  This subject was a major concern within ROCOR as the arrangements began to be iorned out, especially to those priests who left OCA to come over to ROCOR.

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't.  One could say, "economia" to this but the statements made by Met. Jonah concerning his willingness to form a new organization comprising all of the various ethnic bishops, instead of insisting on OCA autocephaly in America, might factor into this.

« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 05:35:17 PM by Nebelpfade » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2009, 09:19:47 AM »

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't. 

Not an argument.

Some of our priests are still not commemorating the Russian Patriarch liturgically.  This is being tolerated by both Moscow and New York as a transitional thing.  But I hope you won't argue that this non-commemoration is a telltale sign that we have not yet achived full union with Moscow !! ??   Grin
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2009, 01:25:09 PM »

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't. 

Not an argument.

Some of our priests are still not commemorating the Russian Patriarch liturgically.  This is being tolerated by both Moscow and New York as a transitional thing.  But I hope you won't argue that this non-commemoration is a telltale sign that we have not yet achived full union with Moscow !! ??   Grin

It would be good if people stopped trying to use ROCOR to prove anything. ROCOR's structure was always 'irregular', ROCOR itself always admitted that. Both the Metropolia and ROCOR were attempts to deal with an unprecedented situation--there are no canons defining how missionary dioceses and bishops-in-exile are supposed to operate when the main body of the Church is held captive by an anti-religious government which not only persecutes but attempts to infiltrate the Church, corrupt its communications, etc, etc. One can criticize many aspects of how one or the other (or both as well as the MP) responded to the situation, but everyone--including the other autocephalous churches recognized that the actions were being taken in an extraordinary context.

The Communists had some 8 decades to disrupt the life of the Church. Since their fall, it took almost a decade-and-a-half for not only the situation in Russia to normalize but for both sides to get past the anger, suspicion, fear, regret, resentment in order to start to normalize their relationship. And as Father points out, even now so the ROCOR still lost some members who couldn't see past the history and the situation is still not completely normalized.

The ROCOR and the OCA are going to take a similar amount of time to heal all the wounds committed over the 80 years. And the two couldn't even really start until the ROCOR and MP had normalized their relationship. Thankfully, all our bishops seem to be approaching this in a pastoral manner. Hopefully, eventually, the bishops will all sit down and work out how to normalize the canonical relationship of the ROCOR and OCA. But it is a lack of charity to assume that it has to happen NOW NOW NOW. Let the healing of the split between ROCOR and the MP have a chance to fully set in, and then the OCA-ROCOR issue can be addressed--yes, it's uncanonical, but that's why we have shepherds and not judges as bishops.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Punch
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,108



« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2009, 03:57:09 PM »

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't. 

Not an argument.

Some of our priests are still not commemorating the Russian Patriarch liturgically.  This is being tolerated by both Moscow and New York as a transitional thing.  But I hope you won't argue that this non-commemoration is a telltale sign that we have not yet achived full union with Moscow !! ??   Grin

It would be good if people stopped trying to use ROCOR to prove anything. ROCOR's structure was always 'irregular', ROCOR itself always admitted that. Both the Metropolia and ROCOR were attempts to deal with an unprecedented situation--there are no canons defining how missionary dioceses and bishops-in-exile are supposed to operate when the main body of the Church is held captive by an anti-religious government which not only persecutes but attempts to infiltrate the Church, corrupt its communications, etc, etc. One can criticize many aspects of how one or the other (or both as well as the MP) responded to the situation, but everyone--including the other autocephalous churches recognized that the actions were being taken in an extraordinary context.

The Communists had some 8 decades to disrupt the life of the Church. Since their fall, it took almost a decade-and-a-half for not only the situation in Russia to normalize but for both sides to get past the anger, suspicion, fear, regret, resentment in order to start to normalize their relationship. And as Father points out, even now so the ROCOR still lost some members who couldn't see past the history and the situation is still not completely normalized.

The ROCOR and the OCA are going to take a similar amount of time to heal all the wounds committed over the 80 years. And the two couldn't even really start until the ROCOR and MP had normalized their relationship. Thankfully, all our bishops seem to be approaching this in a pastoral manner. Hopefully, eventually, the bishops will all sit down and work out how to normalize the canonical relationship of the ROCOR and OCA. But it is a lack of charity to assume that it has to happen NOW NOW NOW. Let the healing of the split between ROCOR and the MP have a chance to fully set in, and then the OCA-ROCOR issue can be addressed--yes, it's uncanonical, but that's why we have shepherds and not judges as bishops.

This is probably the most sane post I have read on this topic. 
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
cholmes
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 146



« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2009, 11:25:28 PM »

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't. 

Not an argument.

Some of our priests are still not commemorating the Russian Patriarch liturgically.  This is being tolerated by both Moscow and New York as a transitional thing.  But I hope you won't argue that this non-commemoration is a telltale sign that we have not yet achived full union with Moscow !! ??   Grin

It would be good if people stopped trying to use ROCOR to prove anything. ROCOR's structure was always 'irregular', ROCOR itself always admitted that. Both the Metropolia and ROCOR were attempts to deal with an unprecedented situation--there are no canons defining how missionary dioceses and bishops-in-exile are supposed to operate when the main body of the Church is held captive by an anti-religious government which not only persecutes but attempts to infiltrate the Church, corrupt its communications, etc, etc. One can criticize many aspects of how one or the other (or both as well as the MP) responded to the situation, but everyone--including the other autocephalous churches recognized that the actions were being taken in an extraordinary context.

The Communists had some 8 decades to disrupt the life of the Church. Since their fall, it took almost a decade-and-a-half for not only the situation in Russia to normalize but for both sides to get past the anger, suspicion, fear, regret, resentment in order to start to normalize their relationship. And as Father points out, even now so the ROCOR still lost some members who couldn't see past the history and the situation is still not completely normalized.

The ROCOR and the OCA are going to take a similar amount of time to heal all the wounds committed over the 80 years. And the two couldn't even really start until the ROCOR and MP had normalized their relationship. Thankfully, all our bishops seem to be approaching this in a pastoral manner. Hopefully, eventually, the bishops will all sit down and work out how to normalize the canonical relationship of the ROCOR and OCA. But it is a lack of charity to assume that it has to happen NOW NOW NOW. Let the healing of the split between ROCOR and the MP have a chance to fully set in, and then the OCA-ROCOR issue can be addressed--yes, it's uncanonical, but that's why we have shepherds and not judges as bishops.

This is probably the most sane post I have read on this topic. 

Agreed in full.
Logged

shep4569
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 58



WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2009, 11:54:45 PM »


It would be good if people stopped trying to use ROCOR to prove anything. ROCOR's structure was always 'irregular', ROCOR itself always admitted that. Both the Metropolia and ROCOR were attempts to deal with an unprecedented situation--there are no canons defining how missionary dioceses and bishops-in-exile are supposed to operate when the main body of the Church is held captive by an anti-religious government which not only persecutes but attempts to infiltrate the Church, corrupt its communications, etc, etc. One can criticize many aspects of how one or the other (or both as well as the MP) responded to the situation, but everyone--including the other autocephalous churches recognized that the actions were being taken in an extraordinary context.

The Communists had some 8 decades to disrupt the life of the Church. Since their fall, it took almost a decade-and-a-half for not only the situation in Russia to normalize but for both sides to get past the anger, suspicion, fear, regret, resentment in order to start to normalize their relationship. And as Father points out, even now so the ROCOR still lost some members who couldn't see past the history and the situation is still not completely normalized.

The ROCOR and the OCA are going to take a similar amount of time to heal all the wounds committed over the 80 years. And the two couldn't even really start until the ROCOR and MP had normalized their relationship. Thankfully, all our bishops seem to be approaching this in a pastoral manner. Hopefully, eventually, the bishops will all sit down and work out how to normalize the canonical relationship of the ROCOR and OCA. But it is a lack of charity to assume that it has to happen NOW NOW NOW. Let the healing of the split between ROCOR and the MP have a chance to fully set in, and then the OCA-ROCOR issue can be addressed--yes, it's uncanonical, but that's why we have shepherds and not judges as bishops.

Amen.
Logged

In Christ,
Logan

"The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." - Job 1:21
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2009, 08:12:24 AM »

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't. 

Not an argument.

Some of our priests are still not commemorating the Russian Patriarch liturgically.  This is being tolerated by both Moscow and New York as a transitional thing.  But I hope you won't argue that this non-commemoration is a telltale sign that we have not yet achived full union with Moscow !! ??   Grin

I am glad that you brought this up because it actually supports my point.

There was a ukaz issued which spelled out the new order of commemoration which included the MP Patriarch.  There was a also ukaz issued for a five year transitional period not to commemorate the MP for those parishes who would suffer if the commemoration were to be enforced upon them.   

What ukaz has been issued addressing the order of commemoration including Met. Jonah, or even a dispensation period for his non-commemoration?    Grin
« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 08:19:30 AM by ROCORthodox » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2009, 11:32:11 AM »


It would be good if people stopped trying to use ROCOR to prove anything. ROCOR's structure was always 'irregular', ROCOR itself always admitted that.

Ukase 362 isued by the Russian Patriarch and the Holy Synod of Russia formed the canonical basis for the formation of these independent "temporary higher Church administrations" -  the Russian Church Abroad, what is now the OCA, and the Russian Vicariate in Paris.

Yes, it was "irregular" but the situation was not unknown in Orthodox history.  There have been examples of other "Churches in Exile."

In the 9th century when the Church of Crete was horribly oppressed, many of its bishops fled Crete (as the Russian bishops fled Russia in the face of atheistic persecution.)  These Cretans went to the Greek mainland.  The Patriarch of Constantinople consecrated bishops for Crete, ones who had no contact with Crete but lived outside Crete and ministered to their flock in exile.

There is another even more prominent example of a Church in Exile with the 7th century Church of Cyprus.  Because of Islamic persecution its hierarchy fled abroad, along with many Cypriots.   They formed the Church of Cyprus in Exile -the Church of Cyprus Outside Cyprus.    The Archbishop of Cyprus even founded a new city for his Church in Exile, Nea Justiniana on the famous Dardanelles (where I lost two great uncles in the war.)

It would have been kind of intriguing if the Russian bishops and exiles had founded a new city in America - New Moscow !!   Smiley
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2009, 11:32:12 AM »

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't. 

Not an argument.

Some of our priests are still not commemorating the Russian Patriarch liturgically.  This is being tolerated by both Moscow and New York as a transitional thing.  But I hope you won't argue that this non-commemoration is a telltale sign that we have not yet achived full union with Moscow !! ??   Grin

I am glad that you brought this up because it actually supports my point.

There was a ukaz issued which spelled out the new order of commemoration which included the MP Patriarch.  There was a also ukaz issued for a five year transitional period not to commemorate the MP for those parishes who would suffer if the commemoration were to be enforced upon them.   

What ukaz has been issued addressing the order of commemoration including Met. Jonah, or even a dispensation period for his non-commemoration?    Grin

The last question contains a non sequitur.  It have NEVER been suggested that there will come a time when ROCA in the United States will have to commemorate the Primate of the OCA.

In Australia and New Zealand we commemorate our Patriarch Kirill as "our Great Lord and Father" followed by Metropolitan Hilarion who holds a dual position here as both our Metropolitan in ROCA AND our diocesan bishop for Australia and New Zealand.

We are under no doubt that the Patriarch together with the Russian Synod is our supreme ecclesiastical authority.  We are under obedience to them and we have no right to challenge their synodal decisions. 
Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2009, 12:10:05 PM »

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't. 

Not an argument.

Some of our priests are still not commemorating the Russian Patriarch liturgically.  This is being tolerated by both Moscow and New York as a transitional thing.  But I hope you won't argue that this non-commemoration is a telltale sign that we have not yet achived full union with Moscow !! ??   Grin

I am glad that you brought this up because it actually supports my point.

There was a ukaz issued which spelled out the new order of commemoration which included the MP Patriarch.  There was a also ukaz issued for a five year transitional period not to commemorate the MP for those parishes who would suffer if the commemoration were to be enforced upon them.   

What ukaz has been issued addressing the order of commemoration including Met. Jonah, or even a dispensation period for his non-commemoration?    Grin

The last question contains a non sequitur.  It have NEVER been suggested that there will come a time when ROCA in the United States will have to commemorate the Primate of the OCA.

In Australia and New Zealand we commemorate our Patriarch Kirill as "our Great Lord and Father" followed by Metropolitan Hilarion who holds a dual position here as both our Metropolitan in ROCA AND our diocesan bishop for Australia and New Zealand.

We are under no doubt that the Patriarch together with the Russian Synod is our supreme ecclesiastical authority.  We are under obedience to them and we have no right to challenge their synodal decisions. 

I am sure the order of commemoration you use was demanded by a ukaz. 

There is not much more to say on this except for some reason you are not willing to believe what Fr. John Shaw and Fr. Alexander Lebedeff have said concerning the understanding ROCOR has with the MP on this topic.

Recently, this question of ROCOR's recognition of OCA autocephaly was asked on a ROCOR list and various priests responded.  Note this response from a ROCOR priest, commenting on the statement of another ROCOR priest which is exactly in line with what has been stated before by ROCOR officials:


"Fr. David correctly answered the question no, we don't recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America. I would only add that Bishop Jerome not only said as much at the Eastern American Diocesan Assembly, but that he said this to Metropolitan Johna himself. But this does not exclude the possibility for concelebration as Fr Tryphon pointed out. Thus, do we now or can we now serve together with the OCA, and whether we recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America are two separate questions."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-rocor/message/10042

Sorry, the reality matches up with these statements and those of the ROCOR officials who are saying the same thing!
I underlined the part about Bishop Jerome to show that he has not changed his position.  His statement above has been confirmed by others who attended the same Diocesan Assembly.  By this I don't think Bishop Jerome or any other priest who confirms that this is ROCOR's position is doing this in disobedience to the MP, but rather by exactly the reasons explained so many times before; because this was problem was worked out in advance with the MP!

I might add that in theory I agree with you and others here on this issue but the theory and reality do not line up.

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #10 on: April 29, 2009, 01:05:07 PM »

[I am sure the order of commemoration you use was demanded by a ukaz. 

There is not much more to say on this except for some reason you are not willing to believe what Fr. John Shaw and Fr. Alexander Lebedeff have said concerning the understanding ROCOR has with the MP on this topic.

Recently, this question of ROCOR's recognition of OCA autocephaly was asked on a ROCOR list and various priests responded.  Note this response from a ROCOR priest, commenting on the statement of another ROCOR priest which is exactly in line with what has been stated before by ROCOR officials:


"Fr. David correctly answered the question no, we don't recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America. I would only add that Bishop Jerome not only said as much at the Eastern American Diocesan Assembly, but that he said this to Metropolitan Johna himself. But this does not exclude the possibility for concelebration as Fr Tryphon pointed out. Thus, do we now or can we now serve together with the OCA, and whether we recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America are two separate questions."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-rocor/message/10042

Sorry, the reality matches up with these statements and those of the ROCOR officials who are saying the same thing!
I underlined the part about Bishop Jerome to show that he has not changed his position.  His statement above has been confirmed by others who attended the same Diocesan Assembly.  By this I don't think Bishop Jerome or any other priest who confirms that this is ROCOR's position is doing this in disobedience to the MP, but rather by exactly the reasons explained so many times before; because this was problem was worked out in advance with the MP!

I might add that in theory I agree with you and others here on this issue but the theory and reality do not line up.



I refuse to accept such gross disobedience to the Patriarch for whom I have prayed as my "Great Lord and Father" at every Liturgy and Service since May 2007.  If he and the Holy Synod of Russian bishops have declared the OCA autocephalous then no priest or hierarch under canonical obedience to the Patriarch and the Synod may deny it.  Have you asked Metropolitan Hilarion if he denies it?

Appeals to pre-union talks conducted around the negotiating table mean little.  What counts and what obtains canonically are the provisions in the Act of Canonical Communion signed by both Churches.   This subordinated the Russian Church Abroad to the Patriarch and the Russian Synod.
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,210


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 29, 2009, 06:14:04 PM »

[I am sure the order of commemoration you use was demanded by a ukaz. 

There is not much more to say on this except for some reason you are not willing to believe what Fr. John Shaw and Fr. Alexander Lebedeff have said concerning the understanding ROCOR has with the MP on this topic.

Recently, this question of ROCOR's recognition of OCA autocephaly was asked on a ROCOR list and various priests responded.  Note this response from a ROCOR priest, commenting on the statement of another ROCOR priest which is exactly in line with what has been stated before by ROCOR officials:


"Fr. David correctly answered the question no, we don't recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America. I would only add that Bishop Jerome not only said as much at the Eastern American Diocesan Assembly, but that he said this to Metropolitan Johna himself. But this does not exclude the possibility for concelebration as Fr Tryphon pointed out. Thus, do we now or can we now serve together with the OCA, and whether we recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America are two separate questions."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-rocor/message/10042

Sorry, the reality matches up with these statements and those of the ROCOR officials who are saying the same thing!
I underlined the part about Bishop Jerome to show that he has not changed his position.  His statement above has been confirmed by others who attended the same Diocesan Assembly.  By this I don't think Bishop Jerome or any other priest who confirms that this is ROCOR's position is doing this in disobedience to the MP, but rather by exactly the reasons explained so many times before; because this was problem was worked out in advance with the MP!

I might add that in theory I agree with you and others here on this issue but the theory and reality do not line up.



I refuse to accept
Good thing you're not a bishop....or God!   angel
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #12 on: April 29, 2009, 09:29:53 PM »

[I am sure the order of commemoration you use was demanded by a ukaz. 

There is not much more to say on this except for some reason you are not willing to believe what Fr. John Shaw and Fr. Alexander Lebedeff have said concerning the understanding ROCOR has with the MP on this topic.

Recently, this question of ROCOR's recognition of OCA autocephaly was asked on a ROCOR list and various priests responded.  Note this response from a ROCOR priest, commenting on the statement of another ROCOR priest which is exactly in line with what has been stated before by ROCOR officials:


"Fr. David correctly answered the question no, we don't recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America. I would only add that Bishop Jerome not only said as much at the Eastern American Diocesan Assembly, but that he said this to Metropolitan Johna himself. But this does not exclude the possibility for concelebration as Fr Tryphon pointed out. Thus, do we now or can we now serve together with the OCA, and whether we recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America are two separate questions."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-rocor/message/10042

Sorry, the reality matches up with these statements and those of the ROCOR officials who are saying the same thing!
I underlined the part about Bishop Jerome to show that he has not changed his position.  His statement above has been confirmed by others who attended the same Diocesan Assembly.  By this I don't think Bishop Jerome or any other priest who confirms that this is ROCOR's position is doing this in disobedience to the MP, but rather by exactly the reasons explained so many times before; because this was problem was worked out in advance with the MP!

I might add that in theory I agree with you and others here on this issue but the theory and reality do not line up.



I refuse to accept such gross disobedience to the Patriarch for whom I have prayed as my "Great Lord and Father" at every Liturgy and Service since May 2007.  If he and the Holy Synod of Russian bishops have declared the OCA autocephalous then no priest or hierarch under canonical obedience to the Patriarch and the Synod may deny it.  Have you asked Metropolitan Hilarion if he denies it?

Appeals to pre-union talks conducted around the negotiating table mean little.  What counts and what obtains canonically are the provisions in the Act of Canonical Communion signed by both Churches.   This subordinated the Russian Church Abroad to the Patriarch and the Russian Synod.

Why do you assume this is disobedience to the Patriarch if this arrangement was negotiated with the MP before hand?  It seems you should be upset with the MP for agreeing to such terms.

As for Metropolitan Hilarion, how could he recognize OCA autocephaly?  If he did how could he hold the title of Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York when his Grace Jonah holds the title of Metropolitan of All America?! 

Aside from the ROCOR priest's statements I posted ealier I even posted a statement from Met. Jonah himself saying he is willing to form a new organization as opposed to having all jurisdictions in America come under OCA.   If anyone, Met. Jonah should be insisting that all jurisdicitons recognize the Tomos, but we are not seeing this.

Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 29, 2009, 10:46:08 PM »

As for Metropolitan Hilarion, how could he recognize OCA autocephaly?  If he did how could he hold the title of Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York when his Grace Jonah holds the title of Metropolitan of All America?!

Anything is possible for God and America. Wink
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #14 on: April 29, 2009, 10:50:12 PM »

[I am sure the order of commemoration you use was demanded by a ukaz. 

There is not much more to say on this except for some reason you are not willing to believe what Fr. John Shaw and Fr. Alexander Lebedeff have said concerning the understanding ROCOR has with the MP on this topic.

Recently, this question of ROCOR's recognition of OCA autocephaly was asked on a ROCOR list and various priests responded.  Note this response from a ROCOR priest, commenting on the statement of another ROCOR priest which is exactly in line with what has been stated before by ROCOR officials:


"Fr. David correctly answered the question no, we don't recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America. I would only add that Bishop Jerome not only said as much at the Eastern American Diocesan Assembly, but that he said this to Metropolitan Johna himself. But this does not exclude the possibility for concelebration as Fr Tryphon pointed out. Thus, do we now or can we now serve together with the OCA, and whether we recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America are two separate questions."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-rocor/message/10042

Sorry, the reality matches up with these statements and those of the ROCOR officials who are saying the same thing!
I underlined the part about Bishop Jerome to show that he has not changed his position.  His statement above has been confirmed by others who attended the same Diocesan Assembly.  By this I don't think Bishop Jerome or any other priest who confirms that this is ROCOR's position is doing this in disobedience to the MP, but rather by exactly the reasons explained so many times before; because this was problem was worked out in advance with the MP!

I might add that in theory I agree with you and others here on this issue but the theory and reality do not line up.



I refuse to accept such gross disobedience to the Patriarch for whom I have prayed as my "Great Lord and Father" at every Liturgy and Service since May 2007.  If he and the Holy Synod of Russian bishops have declared the OCA autocephalous then no priest or hierarch under canonical obedience to the Patriarch and the Synod may deny it.  Have you asked Metropolitan Hilarion if he denies it?

Appeals to pre-union talks conducted around the negotiating table mean little.  What counts and what obtains canonically are the provisions in the Act of Canonical Communion signed by both Churches.   This subordinated the Russian Church Abroad to the Patriarch and the Russian Synod.

Why do you assume this is disobedience to the Patriarch if this arrangement was negotiated with the MP before hand?  It seems you should be upset with the MP for agreeing to such terms.

As for Metropolitan Hilarion, how could he recognize OCA autocephaly?  If he did how could he hold the title of Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York when his Grace Jonah holds the title of Metropolitan of All America?! 

Aside from the ROCOR priest's statements I posted ealier I even posted a statement from Met. Jonah himself saying he is willing to form a new organization as opposed to having all jurisdictions in America come under OCA.   If anyone, Met. Jonah should be insisting that all jurisdicitons recognize the Tomos, but we are not seeing this.

We aren't seeing the PoM and the Holy Synod of Russia revoking the Tomos either.  If Met. Jonah (and Pat. Kyrill and their Holy Synods) wisely decide to practice economia, that is their perrogative, right and duty for the good of the Church.

I don't know what negotiated exemption you are claiming was negotiated for ROCOR, as it's not in the Act of Canonical Communion.  ROCOR is bound by all the Holy Synod's decisions, all of them.  And the onus is on ROCOR concerning the status of the OCA, as the controlling statues plainly state that ROCOR needs confirmation of any of its decisions, not that they are valid unless the Patriarch says otherwise.

It is not to Arb. Hilarion to recognize the OCA, as Arb. Hilarion is not autocephalous.  The issue only comes up in the Russian Church when the Patriarch celebrates DL, or, now according to the Patriarch's directive, DL in the patriarchal parishes in North America, which is also the answer to your question about how Arb. Hilarion can be Met. of Eastern America and New York (but not All America, as Met. Jonah is): read the Tomos.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #15 on: April 29, 2009, 10:53:33 PM »

[I am sure the order of commemoration you use was demanded by a ukaz. 

There is not much more to say on this except for some reason you are not willing to believe what Fr. John Shaw and Fr. Alexander Lebedeff have said concerning the understanding ROCOR has with the MP on this topic.

Recently, this question of ROCOR's recognition of OCA autocephaly was asked on a ROCOR list and various priests responded.  Note this response from a ROCOR priest, commenting on the statement of another ROCOR priest which is exactly in line with what has been stated before by ROCOR officials:


"Fr. David correctly answered the question no, we don't recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America. I would only add that Bishop Jerome not only said as much at the Eastern American Diocesan Assembly, but that he said this to Metropolitan Johna himself. But this does not exclude the possibility for concelebration as Fr Tryphon pointed out. Thus, do we now or can we now serve together with the OCA, and whether we recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America are two separate questions."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-rocor/message/10042

Sorry, the reality matches up with these statements and those of the ROCOR officials who are saying the same thing!
I underlined the part about Bishop Jerome to show that he has not changed his position.  His statement above has been confirmed by others who attended the same Diocesan Assembly.  By this I don't think Bishop Jerome or any other priest who confirms that this is ROCOR's position is doing this in disobedience to the MP, but rather by exactly the reasons explained so many times before; because this was problem was worked out in advance with the MP!

I might add that in theory I agree with you and others here on this issue but the theory and reality do not line up.



I refuse to accept
Good thing you're not a bishop....or God!   angel

Is this an invitation for the bishops to accept Met. Jonah's call for a Resident Synod, no matter what their Patriarch's back home say?  If ROCOR can refuse to recognize what its Patriarch has recognized, what binds the bishops here to their Patriarchs' rejection of OCA autocephaly?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #16 on: April 29, 2009, 10:56:00 PM »

In the 9th century when the Church of Crete was horribly oppressed, many of its bishops fled Crete (as the Russian bishops fled Russia in the face of atheistic persecution.)  These Cretans went to the Greek mainland.  The Patriarch of Constantinople consecrated bishops for Crete, ones who had no contact with Crete but lived outside Crete and ministered to their flock in exile.

There is another even more prominent example of a Church in Exile with the 7th century Church of Cyprus.  Because of Islamic persecution its hierarchy fled abroad, along with many Cypriots.   They formed the Church of Cyprus in Exile -the Church of Cyprus Outside Cyprus.    The Archbishop of Cyprus even founded a new city for his Church in Exile, Nea Justiniana on the famous Dardanelles (where I lost two great uncles in the war.)

Yes, I was aware of these examples and they are one reason I specified 'missionary dioceses and bishops-in-exile' (as distinguished from Churches in exile) in calling the activity of the 'temporaryHigher Church Administrations' irregular (emphasis added because that adjective highlights the fact that none of the organizations formed under ukase 362 were intended to be permanent, regular, *normal* structures). In the case of Cyprus, the entire Church administration was moved to a new location. St. Tikhon however remained in Russia and continued to function, despite great difficulties, as Patriarch in Moscow and was not a member of any of the 'exile' organizations. Even after his repose and complications of Sergius' actions first as locum tenens to a locum tenens and then as Patriarch, none of the exile organizations could claim, or tried to claim, to hold the primacy of the whole Russian Church.

Crete was even less a propos as it was not, to my knowledge, an autocephalous Church but a part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Thus the actions taken were that of internal administration being taken on behalf of a portion of the local church in trouble although the overall administration of that Church was working fine--it would be equivalent not to ROCOR or the Metropolia, but to a situation where China invaded Siberia and the MP 'reset' the Siberian bishops in Kazakhstan to care for the refugees.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #17 on: April 29, 2009, 11:18:21 PM »


As for Metropolitan Hilarion, how could he recognize OCA autocephaly? 

Have you asked him if he denies the OCA's autocephaly?  You may be surprised by his answer. 

You see, it is not up to me to prove that a Metropolitan under obedience to the Russian Patriarch denies the legitimacy of a canonical act of the Patriarchate.  It is up to you to prove it.   You have not.
Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #18 on: April 30, 2009, 08:46:00 AM »


As for Metropolitan Hilarion, how could he recognize OCA autocephaly? 

Have you asked him if he denies the OCA's autocephaly?  You may be surprised by his answer. 

You see, it is not up to me to prove that a Metropolitan under obedience to the Russian Patriarch denies the legitimacy of a canonical act of the Patriarchate.  It is up to you to prove it.   You have not.

Again, you assume this arrangement was not, in fact, worked out in advance as has been claimed by the ROCOR administrators I listed earlier.  Have you asked Met. Hilarion why he holds title to the same territory as Met. Jonah?

Without saying it, it appears you must believe that the secretary, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff (who was a key negotiator in the Act between ROCOR and the MP) is delusional when he explains that the issue of ROCOR's nonrecognition of OCA autocephaly was worked out in advance. 

It also appears that you must think Bishop Jerome, who recently confirmed the same position at the Eastern Diocese meeting (where Met. Hilarion was present), is also wrong. 

You think these kind of men, with their positions in ROCOR, are going to be so publically in "gross disobedience"?   On top of that, this "disobedeince" would be the cause of so many ROCOR priests passing along their explanation to the laity on this important topic.   Such disobedience going unpunished or unchecked! The more realistic explanation is that these administrators really do know what they are talking about.

The proof you seek is the reality of the situation itself and the testimony of ROCOR administrators mentioned above who actually live in America. 


 

   


 

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #19 on: April 30, 2009, 10:35:46 AM »


As for Metropolitan Hilarion, how could he recognize OCA autocephaly? 

Have you asked him if he denies the OCA's autocephaly?  You may be surprised by his answer. 

You see, it is not up to me to prove that a Metropolitan under obedience to the Russian Patriarch denies the legitimacy of a canonical act of the Patriarchate.  It is up to you to prove it.   You have not.

Again, you assume this arrangement was not, in fact, worked out in advance as has been claimed by the ROCOR administrators I listed earlier.  Have you asked Met. Hilarion why he holds title to the same territory as Met. Jonah?

Without saying it, it appears you must believe that the secretary, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff (who was a key negotiator in the Act between ROCOR and the MP) is delusional when he explains that the issue of ROCOR's nonrecognition of OCA autocephaly was worked out in advance. 

It also appears that you must think Bishop Jerome, who recently confirmed the same position at the Eastern Diocese meeting (where Met. Hilarion was present), is also wrong. 

You think these kind of men, with their positions in ROCOR, are going to be so publically in "gross disobedience"?   On top of that, this "disobedeince" would be the cause of so many ROCOR priests passing along their explanation to the laity on this important topic.   Such disobedience going unpunished or unchecked! The more realistic explanation is that these administrators really do know what they are talking about.

The proof you seek is the reality of the situation itself and the testimony of ROCOR administrators mentioned above who actually live in America. 

I followed with minute attention, as I am sure all ROCA priests did, every single statement and report which was issued by the negotiating parties, both those released via ROCA and those released via Moscow.   Usually they were identical.

There was no report of any agreement that ROCA may deny the autocephaly of OCA.

You seem to be saying that secret backroom deals were made which were not made public to the clergy and the Church overall?  If that is the case such deals are meaningless.  And appeals to vague and undocument deals as a means to regulate the life of the Russian Church Abroad in its relationship with the OCA are, frankly, irreconciliable with the standards of truth and honesty which must inform the Church if she wishes to retain some integrity among the faithful.  One small proof of this is the misunderstanding between yourself and myself on this matter.   Sad
  


 


[/quote]
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #20 on: April 30, 2009, 01:58:47 PM »


As for Metropolitan Hilarion, how could he recognize OCA autocephaly?

Have you asked him if he denies the OCA's autocephaly?  You may be surprised by his answer. 

You see, it is not up to me to prove that a Metropolitan under obedience to the Russian Patriarch denies the legitimacy of a canonical act of the Patriarchate.  It is up to you to prove it.   You have not.

Again, you assume this arrangement was not, in fact, worked out in advance as has been claimed by the ROCOR administrators I listed earlier.  Have you asked Met. Hilarion why he holds title to the same territory as Met. Jonah?

Without saying it, it appears you must believe that the secretary, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff (who was a key negotiator in the Act between ROCOR and the MP) is delusional when he explains that the issue of ROCOR's nonrecognition of OCA autocephaly was worked out in advance. 

It also appears that you must think Bishop Jerome, who recently confirmed the same position at the Eastern Diocese meeting (where Met. Hilarion was present), is also wrong. 

You think these kind of men, with their positions in ROCOR, are going to be so publically in "gross disobedience"?   On top of that, this "disobedeince" would be the cause of so many ROCOR priests passing along their explanation to the laity on this important topic.


Why does ROCOR care?

Why is this such a burning issue for ROCOR, according to you?

As I posted on the same thread:
ROCOR long used St. Tikhon's famous ukaze as its founding document.  Its final clause
Quote
10) All measures taken in places in accordances with the present instruction, afterwards, in the event of the restoration of the central ecclesiastical authority, must be subject to the confirmation of the latter.
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enuk_ukaz362.html

had been activated.  Central ecclesiastical authority has been restored, and said central ecclesiastical authority is bound by its own decions and Tomoi of the its own Holy Synod NOT to confirm ROCOR's measures as regards the OCA.

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html
Quote
Act of Canonical Communion
We, the humble Alexy II, by God's mercy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, jointly with the Eminent Members of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, having gathered at a meeting of the Holy Synod (date) in the God-preserved city of Moscow; and the humble Laurus, Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York, First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, jointly with the Eminent Bishops, members of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, having gathered (time, place);

Being guided by the effort towards reestablishing blessed peace, Divinely-decreed love, and brotherly unity in the common work in the harvest-fields of God within the Fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church and her faithful in the Fatherland and abroad, taking into consideration the ecclesiastical life of the Russian diaspora outside the canonical borders of the Moscow Patriarchate, as dictated by history;


This is a problem, as it plainly states that ROCOR is outside Moscow and Russia's jurisdiction.  In other words, the Act you should have been signing should have been with the EP, according to your agreement with his interpretation of things.

Either you, or Fr. Ambrose, are representative of ROCOR.  Fr. Ambrose I understand, but I don't understand why you think the OCA and its autocephaly is such an important issue for you, such that you insist that some secret concordant exempts you from the plain language of the Act of Canonical Communion over the issue.

In the interest of full disclosure, I never "got" what ROCOR's beef was over the OCA.


Quote
Such disobedience going unpunished or unchecked! The more realistic explanation is that these administrators really do know what they are talking about.
Quote
The proof you seek is the reality of the situation itself and the testimony of ROCOR administrators mentioned above who actually live in America. 
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,964


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #21 on: April 30, 2009, 02:55:37 PM »

This forum is the first place that I had heard of ROCOR not recognizing the OCA's autocephaly after the reunion with the MP.  It seems a bit odd to me, since they're not in a position to recognize or not recognize (technically, only those who commemorate the diptychs - Patriarchs and Archbishops of Autocephalous Churches) liturgically.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #22 on: April 30, 2009, 04:22:42 PM »

This forum is the first place that I had heard of ROCOR not recognizing the OCA's autocephaly after the reunion with the MP.  It seems a bit odd to me, since they're not in a position to recognize or not recognize (technically, only those who commemorate the diptychs - Patriarchs and Archbishops of Autocephalous Churches) liturgically.

Its seems for some people old habits die hard, which is why I think the PoM, OCA and ROCOR aren't, nor should, push matters.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,964


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #23 on: April 30, 2009, 05:10:21 PM »

I guess I can see why the MP would tell ROCOR they don't have to recognize the OCA's autocephaly: since they're not in a position to officially recognize anyone's autocephaly (since they don't commemorate the diptychs of the Church), then their statements of non-recognition mean little since they are members of a Church (the Patriarchate of Moscow and all Russia) which does indeed recognize said autocephaly.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,539



« Reply #24 on: April 30, 2009, 07:24:16 PM »

I am somewhat surprised that I am in agreement with Cleveland and ialmisry (and Father Ambrose who was saying basically the same thing in another thread) at the same time. Shocked

Senator Dirksen of Illinois used to say that "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money". Well, a little agreement here, a little agreement there, pretty soon, you are talking unity." Smiley
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,213


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #25 on: April 30, 2009, 07:36:45 PM »

Well, a little agreement here, a little agreement there, pretty soon, you are talking unity." Smiley

This statement flies in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For genuine unity to be achieved, in whatever system (yes, even in Orthodox jurisdictional matters!), a considerable amount of energy and conscious effort must be introduced into the system to reduce its disorder/entropy. Mere platitudes are nowhere near enough.  Wink
Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #26 on: May 01, 2009, 09:45:28 AM »

Quote
Either you, or Fr. Ambrose, are representative of ROCOR.  Fr. Ambrose I understand, but I don't understand why you think the OCA and its autocephaly is such an important issue for you, such that you insist that some secret concordant exempts you from the plain language of the Act of Canonical Communion over the issue.

The ROCOR representatives who already explained all of this in detail are representative of ROCOR's position.  There is no secret.    You seem to be ignoring the bits I am posting which shows the ROCOR secretary for the reunification, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff as well as Fr. John Shaw and other ROCOR priests all affirming the same position.  I spared you the many bits with Fr. Ambrose himself arguing with them while they explained all of this to him.   There is much more I could post from these numerous and involved threads over the last year but I doubt any of that will change your mind.   You have your opinion and it conflicts with the position of the ROCOR officials who were involved in negotiating the very Act itself!

As for the "plain language of the Act", simply put, you are not the one who has the authority to interpret it.   Those who DO have such authority already spoke as to what it means for ROCOR.    Why should we believe you over the authorities?

The Act itself is in opposition to the OCA Tomos in what it secures as ROCOR's status.

Here is a section from an official statement from ROCOR hierarchy addressing her clergy and faithful who brought up the same points both you and Fr. Ambrose make together:

" . . . According to the “Act on Canonical Communion,” the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is “self-governing in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property and civil matters” (par. 2). No decrees of the Synod of Bishops or Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are subject to the review or confirmation of the Holy Synod or Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, except those of a canonical nature.

Consequently, there can be no discussion of the “subjugation” of one side to another, or of the self-dissolution of the Russian Church Abroad. Quite the opposite, the “Act on Canonical Communion” confirms the future canonical status of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia—by recognizing that she “in the historically-developed complement of the dioceses, parishes, monasteries, brotherhoods and other ecclesiastical establishment, continues to be an inseparable, self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church” as she always deemed herself to be.

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, in her fullness, thus preserves her existence and self-governing status. She will continue to have her own First Hierarch, her own Council of Bishops, her own Synod of Bishops, her own Regulations, and will govern herself with complete independence.

Howver, her temporary status departs into the past, a status which had been conditioned, as was explicitly stated in the first paragraph of the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, on the existence in Russia of the godless regime. That paragraph states: “The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is an indissoluble part of the Russian Orthodox Church, and for the time until the extermination in Russia of the godless regime, is self-governing on conciliar principles…”

With the abolishment of the godless regime in Russia, this paragraph loses its force, and cannot remain as the basis for the canonical status of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

Therefore, it was necessary to establish a new, indisputable canonical status recognized by the full complement of Universal Orthodoxy for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, while preserving its original condition of being an “indissoluble part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church.”

This in fact was achieved in the “Act on Canonical Communion” approved and confirmed at the latest Synod of Bishops.

+ LAURUS,
Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York,
First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

+ Mark, Archbishop of Berlin and Germany

+ Kyrill, Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America

+ Michael, Bishop of Geneva and Western Europe

+ Gabriel, Bishop of Manhattan

+ Peter, Bishop of Cleveland




Quote
In the interest of full disclosure, I never "got" what ROCOR's beef was over the OCA.

I think the start was this:

"ROCOR historian Fr. Alexey Young, in his history of the ROCOR, writes: "In the early 1920s, the American Church came under the jurisdiction of the Administration Abroad, which took an active administrative role in overseeing its American 'branch'—particularly on disciplinary questions such as divorce and the establishment of a new See in Alaska" (Young, p. 33). Young then writes that Platon was appointed by the Church Abroad as the leader in North America, but unbeknownst to his fellows in the Synod, "was at the same time seeking official appointment directly from Patriarch Tikhon himself. When the Patriarch refused to interfere in the decision of the Church Abroad, saying he 'did not wish to go over their heads,' Platon suddenly produced an ukaz, allegedly from Tikhon, appointing him as sole and independent head of the Church in America" (ibid.). Young continues, writing, that at first the ROCOR synod accepted the decree in good faith, but its authenticity was called severely into question when in 1924 "an actual decree from the Patriarch in Moscow deposed Platon 'for having engaged in public acts of counter-revolution directed against the Soviet government'" (ibid.). An American court also ruled subsequently that the ukaz produced by Platon was a forgery. "To deal with this embarrassment, Platon convoked the Detroit Sobor in April of the same year, with the purpose of declaring the Russian Church in America 'temporarily autonomous'—that is, free of both Moscow and Karlovci" (ibid.). This sobor is listed in the archives of the OCA as the "4th All-American Sobor.""

http://orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA

Then other issues explained here:

http://tinyurl.com/d5k9ea

http://tinyurl.com/d5g6xv

I think it is important to add that I personally have no problem with ROCOR and OCA working out their differences.  I am only posting what ROCOR is telling her clergy and faithful on these matters.




« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 10:20:01 AM by ROCORthodox » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #27 on: May 01, 2009, 10:53:47 AM »

[" . . . According to the “Act on Canonical Communion,” the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is “self-governing in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property and civil matters” (par. 2). No decrees of the Synod of Bishops or Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are subject to the review or confirmation of the Holy Synod or Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, except those of a canonical nature.

It is of the utmost importance to make it clear that that your last sentence above is not part of the Act of Canonical Communion.

The text is here - the official site of the Russian Church Abroad

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html

and here - the official site of the Patriarchate

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/070517113937.htm
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #28 on: May 01, 2009, 11:54:58 AM »

Quote
Either you, or Fr. Ambrose, are representative of ROCOR.  Fr. Ambrose I understand, but I don't understand why you think the OCA and its autocephaly is such an important issue for you, such that you insist that some secret concordant exempts you from the plain language of the Act of Canonical Communion over the issue.

The ROCOR representatives who already explained all of this in detail are representative of ROCOR's position.  There is no secret.    You seem to be ignoring the bits I am posting which shows the ROCOR secretary for the reunification, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff as well as Fr. John Shaw and other ROCOR priests all affirming the same position.  I spared you the many bits with Fr. Ambrose himself arguing with them while they explained all of this to him.   There is much more I could post from these numerous and involved threads over the last year but I doubt any of that will change your mind.   You have your opinion and it conflicts with the position of the ROCOR officials who were involved in negotiating the very Act itself!

As for the "plain language of the Act", simply put, you are not the one who has the authority to interpret it.   Those who DO have such authority already spoke as to what it means for ROCOR.    Why should we believe you over the authorities?


Said highest authorities are the Patriarch of Moscow and his Holy Synod, the central authority mentioned in Tikhon's ukaze.  They DO have the authority.  They must confirm ROCOR's position on the OCA for it to have validity.  They DID NOT.

Can you distinguish between your position and this one?
Quote
Now, what is so important about Ukaz #362? It is the clear, authoritative directive and blueprint for all Russian Church life since communication with the lawful Highest Church Authority and Patriarch ceased to be possible in the 1920's, and it totally overthrows the claims of the Protocols #48 and #49.

Ukaz #362 defines to which bishop the clergy, parishes, faithful, etc. are to be subject to in the given circumstances and there does not exist any of the reasons given by the Patriarch and Council in which the clergyman, parish, or layman may be under a bishop other than Archbishop Gregory. It is needful to note straightway that in Point #7 of Ukaz #362 widowed dioceses are considered still as established dioceses of the Autocephalous Russian Church in spite of their situation (i.e., being widowed or vacant) continuing for a protracted period of time or even almost permanently (cf. Point #5), because ultimately every action taken by them is subject to the review and approval or rejection by a future All-Russian Church Sobor under a lawful Patriarch (cf. Point # 10). And when in 1920, St. Tikhon and the Highest Church Authority of Russia issued Ukaz #362, one of the dioceses to which he was referring in it was beyond dispute that of North America, he himself having but lately been ruling it as its Archbishop. According to the Ukaz, Metropolitan Valentine had the right to assume the administration of the widowed Archdiocese or dioceses of North America (Point #7), to keep intact or to subdivide the widowed diocese(s) and appoint one or more of his vicar-bishops as ruling bishop(s) of one or more of the newly-created dioceses or the whole district, with the full canonical authority and rights of a diocesan bishop(s) (Point #5), and to administer together with him or them the dioceses of the district in accordance with the Canons (Point #6). This he did at first, and he was operating within the authority permitted by the Autocephalous Russian Church in Ukaz #362. He also submitted to Point #7 in acknowledging as subject to Archbishop Gregory's jurisdiction all those parishes and Christians in relation to whom Archbishop Gregory was the nearest diocesan bishop and/or most accessible as regards convenience or relations in their estimation. (Thus, without doubt and beyond all dispute, by virtue of the Ukaz of the Autocephalous Russian Church, Archbishop Gregory has the authority to forbid the Metropolitan of Suzdal and Vladimir from taking or ordaining his clergy and has this full episcopal authority over all those belonging to the Russian Church, whether in Colorado, Eastern or Western America, or even Bulgaria, in relation to whom he is the nearest or most accessible as regards convience or relations.) In fact, making public note of his own limitations, the Metropolitan did not even so much as give an award to any of these clergy or ordain these faithful without Archbishop Gregory's blessing and consent. Again, all was done canonically and in accordance with the established basis for Church Administration in our situation by the Autocephalous Church of Russia and the Holy Canons. However, more recently he has decided to eschew the decrees of the Autocephalous Russian Church made in Ukaz #362 and the Holy Canons and dictate a new ephemeral and unauthorized foundation for Church administration in the ROAC, which he imagines now gives him unlimited jurisdiction in all dioceses, something found only in Papism in the decrees of the 1st and 2nd Vatican Councils, but in no Orthodox authoritative source. Regardless, it is completely unlawful and invalid for the Metropolitan or the Synod of the ROAC to adopt any system of administration contradicting in any point the one decreed by the Autocephalous Church of Russia in 1920 -- Ukaz #362, which declares that the temporary autonomous Synods or individual bishops must govern "in accordance with the Canons". By defying the binding decree of the Autocephalous Russian Church, the Metropolitan is in fact rebelling against his lawful Church Authority, ursurping its rights, and making a schism.
http://www.roacamerica.org/ann-Schism20040808-Refutations.shtml

Quote
The Act itself is in opposition to the OCA Tomos in what it secures as ROCOR's status.

How is the Act itself in opposition to the OCA Tomos?  Please cite.

Quote
Here is a section from an official statement from ROCOR hierarchy addressing her clergy and faithful who brought up the same points both you and Fr. Ambrose make together:

" . . . According to the “Act on Canonical Communion,” the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is “self-governing in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property and civil matters” (par. 2). No decrees of the Synod of Bishops or Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are subject to the review or confirmation of the Holy Synod or Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, except those of a canonical nature.

Consequently, there can be no discussion of the “subjugation” of one side to another, or of the self-dissolution of the Russian Church Abroad. Quite the opposite, the “Act on Canonical Communion” confirms the future canonical status of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia—by recognizing that she “in the historically-developed complement of the dioceses, parishes, monasteries, brotherhoods and other ecclesiastical establishment, continues to be an inseparable, self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church” as she always deemed herself to be.


That's nice.  Now explain how their authority trumps the Patriarch and the Holy Synod. In particular, how did the Act void point 10 of ukaze 362?

Quote
The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, in her fullness, thus preserves her existence and self-governing status. She will continue to have her own First Hierarch, her own Council of Bishops, her own Synod of Bishops, her own Regulations, and will govern herself with complete independence.


Interesting.  Now, explain to me, since you have stated that you agree with the EP's canon 28 interpretation, and the act specifically states that you are outside the canonical boundaries of the Russian Orthodox Church, who is going to preserve your "complete independence" from the EP?

What is your aim, to continue your existence outside Russia (any part still inside Russia?)?  A permanent diaspora Synod?  And that's not a tad uncanonical.....?

Quote
Howver, her temporary status departs into the past, a status which had been conditioned, as was explicitly stated in the first paragraph of the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, on the existence in Russia of the godless regime. That paragraph states: “The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is an indissoluble part of the Russian Orthodox Church, and for the time until the extermination in Russia of the godless regime, is self-governing on conciliar principles…”

With the abolishment of the godless regime in Russia, this paragraph loses its force, and cannot remain as the basis for the canonical status of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

Therefore, it was necessary to establish a new, indisputable canonical status recognized by the full complement of Universal Orthodoxy for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, while preserving its original condition of being an “indissoluble part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church.”

This in fact was achieved in the “Act on Canonical Communion” approved and confirmed at the latest Synod of Bishops.

+ LAURUS,
Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York,
First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

+ Mark, Archbishop of Berlin and Germany

+ Kyrill, Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America

+ Michael, Bishop of Geneva and Western Europe

+ Gabriel, Bishop of Manhattan

+ Peter, Bishop of Cleveland


Yes, time to move on....


Quote
In the interest of full disclosure, I never "got" what ROCOR's beef was over the OCA.

Quote
I think the start was this:

"ROCOR historian Fr. Alexey Young, in his history of the ROCOR, writes: "In the early 1920s, the American Church came under the jurisdiction of the Administration Abroad, which took an active administrative role in overseeing its American 'branch'—particularly on disciplinary questions such as divorce and the establishment of a new See in Alaska" (Young, p. 33). Young then writes that Platon was appointed by the Church Abroad as the leader in North America, but unbeknownst to his fellows in the Synod, "was at the same time seeking official appointment directly from Patriarch Tikhon himself. When the Patriarch refused to interfere in the decision of the Church Abroad, saying he 'did not wish to go over their heads,' Platon suddenly produced an ukaz, allegedly from Tikhon, appointing him as sole and independent head of the Church in America" (ibid.). Young continues, writing, that at first the ROCOR synod accepted the decree in good faith, but its authenticity was called severely into question when in 1924 "an actual decree from the Patriarch in Moscow deposed Platon 'for having engaged in public acts of counter-revolution directed against the Soviet government'" (ibid.). An American court also ruled subsequently that the ukaz produced by Platon was a forgery. "To deal with this embarrassment, Platon convoked the Detroit Sobor in April of the same year, with the purpose of declaring the Russian Church in America 'temporarily autonomous'—that is, free of both Moscow and Karlovci" (ibid.). This sobor is listed in the archives of the OCA as the "4th All-American Sobor.""

http://orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA

What was that court case again that ruled it was a forgery?  Kedrovsky v. Rojdesvensky 214 A.D. 483?  Cause that one (at 487) questioned whether St. Tikhon had any authority, and whether the office of Patriarch of Russia existed.

Quote
Then other issues explained here:

http://tinyurl.com/d5k9ea

http://tinyurl.com/d5g6xv

I think it is important to add that I personally have no problem with ROCOR and OCA working out their differences.  I am only posting what ROCOR is telling her clergy and faithful on these matters.

I would wish that they would put it in writing, but I'd rather let sleeping dogs lie.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 11:56:39 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,527


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #29 on: May 01, 2009, 12:52:29 PM »

Just a note from back here on Earth Smiley

There is a much closer relationship now between  Rocor and OCA Parishoners, at least here where I live. I was Baptised in the OCA but left with about dozen others for Rocor during the recent troubles in the OCA. I expect there will also be folks going the other direction.

When Met. Jonah was enthroned, one of the Priests who helped to vest him was Fr. Victor, an important figure within Rocor and the Arch Priest of the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist here in DC. Met. Jonah seems to love the Rocor Cathedral and visits often.

The people will work this out. The leaders will catch up.   
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #30 on: May 01, 2009, 02:23:16 PM »

Just a note from back here on Earth Smiley

There is a much closer relationship now between  Rocor and OCA Parishoners, at least here where I live. I was Baptised in the OCA but left with about dozen others for Rocor during the recent troubles in the OCA. I expect there will also be folks going the other direction.

When Met. Jonah was enthroned, one of the Priests who helped to vest him was Fr. Victor, an important figure within Rocor and the Arch Priest of the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist here in DC. Met. Jonah seems to love the Rocor Cathedral and visits often.

The people will work this out. The leaders will catch up.   

Yes, the fact that Met. Jonah might be a convert and primate of the OCA, but he didn't embrace Orthodoxy in the OCA but in the Patriarchate of Moscow and was a monk in Russia, i.e. he doesn't have the wrong history, helps.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #31 on: May 01, 2009, 02:50:20 PM »

[" . . . According to the “Act on Canonical Communion,” the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is “self-governing in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property and civil matters” (par. 2). No decrees of the Synod of Bishops or Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are subject to the review or confirmation of the Holy Synod or Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, except those of a canonical nature.

It is of the utmost importance to make it clear that that your last sentence above is not part of the Act of Canonical Communion.

The text is here - the official site of the Russian Church Abroad

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html

and here - the official site of the Patriarchate

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/070517113937.htm


The part you discuss above is not MY sentence.  It belongs to these hierarchs in their official statement:

+ LAURUS,
Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York,
First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

+ Mark, Archbishop of Berlin and Germany

+ Kyrill, Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America

+ Michael, Bishop of Geneva and Western Europe

+ Gabriel, Bishop of Manhattan

+ Peter, Bishop of Cleveland

 
Irish Hermit, why don't you believe them?
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 02:51:20 PM by ROCORthodox » Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #32 on: May 01, 2009, 03:24:34 PM »

Quote
Either you, or Fr. Ambrose, are representative of ROCOR.  Fr. Ambrose I understand, but I don't understand why you think the OCA and its autocephaly is such an important issue for you, such that you insist that some secret concordant exempts you from the plain language of the Act of Canonical Communion over the issue.

The ROCOR representatives who already explained all of this in detail are representative of ROCOR's position.  There is no secret.    You seem to be ignoring the bits I am posting which shows the ROCOR secretary for the reunification, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff as well as Fr. John Shaw and other ROCOR priests all affirming the same position.  I spared you the many bits with Fr. Ambrose himself arguing with them while they explained all of this to him.   There is much more I could post from these numerous and involved threads over the last year but I doubt any of that will change your mind.   You have your opinion and it conflicts with the position of the ROCOR officials who were involved in negotiating the very Act itself!

As for the "plain language of the Act", simply put, you are not the one who has the authority to interpret it.   Those who DO have such authority already spoke as to what it means for ROCOR.    Why should we believe you over the authorities?


Said highest authorities are the Patriarch of Moscow and his Holy Synod, the central authority mentioned in Tikhon's ukaze.  They DO have the authority.  They must confirm ROCOR's position on the OCA for it to have validity.  They DID NOT.

And it is within the power of the highest authority to assemble a team to negotiate with ROCOR a stipulation that she does not have to accept OCA autocephaly so the union could happen.   

This circular argument is because it is your "opinion" that the MP does not support what the ROCOR officials are explaining was worked out with them on this 'deal breaker' issue.   I gave you the statements and links to them.

Before we go any further please answer why should I believe your opinion over the protopriest who was a key negotiator of the very Act you use to make your assertions?

It really comes down to this point.



« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 03:25:17 PM by ROCORthodox » Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #33 on: May 01, 2009, 03:32:43 PM »

Just a note from back here on Earth Smiley

There is a much closer relationship now between  Rocor and OCA Parishoners, at least here where I live. I was Baptised in the OCA but left with about dozen others for Rocor during the recent troubles in the OCA. I expect there will also be folks going the other direction.

When Met. Jonah was enthroned, one of the Priests who helped to vest him was Fr. Victor, an important figure within Rocor and the Arch Priest of the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist here in DC. Met. Jonah seems to love the Rocor Cathedral and visits often.

The people will work this out. The leaders will catch up.   

Thus ROCOR not accepting OCA autocephaly has presented no obstacles to the building of these closer relationships.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #34 on: May 01, 2009, 04:20:35 PM »

Quote
Either you, or Fr. Ambrose, are representative of ROCOR.  Fr. Ambrose I understand, but I don't understand why you think the OCA and its autocephaly is such an important issue for you, such that you insist that some secret concordant exempts you from the plain language of the Act of Canonical Communion over the issue.

The ROCOR representatives who already explained all of this in detail are representative of ROCOR's position.  There is no secret.    You seem to be ignoring the bits I am posting which shows the ROCOR secretary for the reunification, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff as well as Fr. John Shaw and other ROCOR priests all affirming the same position.  I spared you the many bits with Fr. Ambrose himself arguing with them while they explained all of this to him.   There is much more I could post from these numerous and involved threads over the last year but I doubt any of that will change your mind.   You have your opinion and it conflicts with the position of the ROCOR officials who were involved in negotiating the very Act itself!

As for the "plain language of the Act", simply put, you are not the one who has the authority to interpret it.   Those who DO have such authority already spoke as to what it means for ROCOR.    Why should we believe you over the authorities?


Said highest authorities are the Patriarch of Moscow and his Holy Synod, the central authority mentioned in Tikhon's ukaze.  They DO have the authority.  They must confirm ROCOR's position on the OCA for it to have validity.  They DID NOT.

And it is within the power of the highest authority to assemble a team to negotiate with ROCOR a stipulation that she does not have to accept OCA autocephaly so the union could happen.   

This circular argument is because it is your "opinion" that the MP does not support what the ROCOR officials are explaining was worked out with them on this 'deal breaker' issue.   I gave you the statements and links to them.

Before we go any further please answer why should I believe your opinion over the protopriest who was a key negotiator of the very Act you use to make your assertions?

It really comes down to this point.

The Protopriest doesn't read the diptychs of the autocephalous primates when he serves.  The Patriarch of Moscow in the Russian Church (including ROCOR) alone does.  And he commemorates Met. Jonah.  And he has instructed his non-ROCOR parishes in North America to commemorate Met. Jonah, including those parishes within the territory of New York and the Eastern United States.

When the Protopriest produces some official document, with bishops' names affixed and signed (in which case, they might be joining Bishop Valentine), stating that they reject the Tomos issued by the Patriarch of Moscow and the Holy Synod of the ROC to the OCA, it remains the protopriest's personal opinion, and hence of as much authority as mine.  Because he seems to be basing his authority in the same manner that you accuse Met. Platon of doing.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 04:23:16 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #35 on: May 01, 2009, 04:50:51 PM »


As for Metropolitan Hilarion, how could he recognize OCA autocephaly? 

Have you asked him if he denies the OCA's autocephaly?  You may be surprised by his answer. 

You see, it is not up to me to prove that a Metropolitan under obedience to the Russian Patriarch denies the legitimacy of a canonical act of the Patriarchate.  It is up to you to prove it.   You have not.

Again, you assume this arrangement was not, in fact, worked out in advance as has been claimed by the ROCOR administrators I listed earlier.  Have you asked Met. Hilarion why he holds title to the same territory as Met. Jonah?

Without saying it, it appears you must believe that the secretary, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff (who was a key negotiator in the Act between ROCOR and the MP) is delusional when he explains that the issue of ROCOR's nonrecognition of OCA autocephaly was worked out in advance. 

It also appears that you must think Bishop Jerome, who recently confirmed the same position at the Eastern Diocese meeting (where Met. Hilarion was present), is also wrong. 

You think these kind of men, with their positions in ROCOR, are going to be so publically in "gross disobedience"?   On top of that, this "disobedeince" would be the cause of so many ROCOR priests passing along their explanation to the laity on this important topic.   Such disobedience going unpunished or unchecked! The more realistic explanation is that these administrators really do know what they are talking about.

The proof you seek is the reality of the situation itself and the testimony of ROCOR administrators mentioned above who actually live in America. 

I followed with minute attention, as I am sure all ROCA priests did, every single statement and report which was issued by the negotiating parties, both those released via ROCA and those released via Moscow.   Usually they were identical.

There was no report of any agreement that ROCA may deny the autocephaly of OCA.

You seem to be saying that secret backroom deals were made which were not made public to the clergy and the Church overall?  If that is the case such deals are meaningless.  And appeals to vague and undocument deals as a means to regulate the life of the Russian Church Abroad in its relationship with the OCA are, frankly, irreconciliable with the standards of truth and honesty which must inform the Church if she wishes to retain some integrity among the faithful.  One small proof of this is the misunderstanding between yourself and myself on this matter.   Sad
  

I am not saying secret back room deals were made at all.  I am simply repeating what is being said publically by Bishop Jerome and many other priests including Fr. Alexander Lebedeff on this very point.  Then again you already know this since the explainations Fr. John Shaw, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff and others offered on this point were mostly answering the same disbelief you voiced to them. 

If you don't want to believe them then simply look to the reality playing out.  That the actions of ROCOR functioning in the USA do not recognize an OCA autocephaly. 


 
Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #36 on: May 01, 2009, 05:11:01 PM »

Quote
Either you, or Fr. Ambrose, are representative of ROCOR.  Fr. Ambrose I understand, but I don't understand why you think the OCA and its autocephaly is such an important issue for you, such that you insist that some secret concordant exempts you from the plain language of the Act of Canonical Communion over the issue.

The ROCOR representatives who already explained all of this in detail are representative of ROCOR's position.  There is no secret.    You seem to be ignoring the bits I am posting which shows the ROCOR secretary for the reunification, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff as well as Fr. John Shaw and other ROCOR priests all affirming the same position.  I spared you the many bits with Fr. Ambrose himself arguing with them while they explained all of this to him.   There is much more I could post from these numerous and involved threads over the last year but I doubt any of that will change your mind.   You have your opinion and it conflicts with the position of the ROCOR officials who were involved in negotiating the very Act itself!

As for the "plain language of the Act", simply put, you are not the one who has the authority to interpret it.   Those who DO have such authority already spoke as to what it means for ROCOR.    Why should we believe you over the authorities?


Said highest authorities are the Patriarch of Moscow and his Holy Synod, the central authority mentioned in Tikhon's ukaze.  They DO have the authority.  They must confirm ROCOR's position on the OCA for it to have validity.  They DID NOT.

And it is within the power of the highest authority to assemble a team to negotiate with ROCOR a stipulation that she does not have to accept OCA autocephaly so the union could happen.   

This circular argument is because it is your "opinion" that the MP does not support what the ROCOR officials are explaining was worked out with them on this 'deal breaker' issue.   I gave you the statements and links to them.

Before we go any further please answer why should I believe your opinion over the protopriest who was a key negotiator of the very Act you use to make your assertions?

It really comes down to this point.

The Protopriest doesn't read the diptychs of the autocephalous primates when he serves.  The Patriarch of Moscow in the Russian Church (including ROCOR) alone does.  And he commemorates Met. Jonah.  And he has instructed his non-ROCOR parishes in North America to commemorate Met. Jonah, including those parishes within the territory of New York and the Eastern United States.

When the Protopriest produces some official document, with bishops' names affixed and signed (in which case, they might be joining Bishop Valentine), stating that they reject the Tomos issued by the Patriarch of Moscow and the Holy Synod of the ROC to the OCA, it remains the protopriest's personal opinion, and hence of as much authority as mine.  Because he seems to be basing his authority in the same manner that you accuse Met. Platon of doing.

Well, if you see fit to claim for yourself as much authority on this matter as the protopriest who actually was a key negotiator of the Act, I think I'll choose to believe my own hierarchs and priests who confirm Fr. Alexander's explaination.

Have you written a letter of protest to the MP Patriarch for not speaking out against ROCOR's consistent actions in the USA which are in direct conflict to the OCA Tomos?  What about those bishops and priests who are saying these things you don't agree with?  Don't you think they should be punished for such long-standing and public  disobedience? The MP's silence speaks volumes.

The more believable scenario is that our officials are telling it like it is (which explains why things are the way they are).
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 05:16:11 PM by ROCORthodox » Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #37 on: May 01, 2009, 05:11:15 PM »


If you don't want to believe them then simply look to the reality playing out.  That the actions of ROCOR functioning in the USA do not recognize an OCA autocephaly. 


It might help you and the Father to stop talking past each other if you each defined what you mean by recognize.

Part of why Father Ambrose (and others) keep disagreeing with you is because no matter what Fr. Alexander et. al. personally say, the fact remains that they commemorate a bishop (or are a bishop) who commemorates the Patriarch of Moscow as their First Hierarch--and the Patriarch of Moscow does recognize the autocephaly of the OCA--for evidence one need look no further than the pictures posted here of Metropolitan Jonah's visit to Moscow where he has been received as a visiting primate.

On the other hand, if what you mean by 'don't recognize' is primarily what you refer to above--that the ROCOR bishops do not have to operate in America under the strictures of the Patriarchal parishes (they don't commemorate Met. Jonah, they don't consult have to consult with the local OCA bishop before opening a new parish or taking any other administrative action in their own dioceses, etc), then I think you are obviously correct. To me this goes back to what I said about the reunification being handled in a pastoral manner. Rightly or wrongly, several generations of ROCOR leadership were strongly invested in *not* recognizing the legitimacy of the OCA. Simply having them (and the OCA--this actually applies to both sides) return to concelebration is already a huge step, forcing them to actually go under the authority of the OCA would have been too great a burden.

The real test is going to be the first time an OCA priest gets in trouble with his bishop/the synod and tries to pre-empt his suspension and a canonical court by leaping to ROCOR without a canonical release. For decades there was a slow but steady stream of this behavior going in both directions between the jurisdictions (which is, frankly, the proximate answer to ialmisry's original question). Given that a discipline ROCOR priest is a disciplined MP priest now, I'm fairly certain Metropolitan Jonah wouldn't take him without his bishop's permission; assuming both that I am right and that ROCOR reciprocates that position, the wounds stretching back to the Cleveland sobor might finally start to truly heal.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #38 on: May 01, 2009, 07:24:49 PM »


If you don't want to believe them then simply look to the reality playing out.  That the actions of ROCOR functioning in the USA do not recognize an OCA autocephaly. 


It might help you and the Father to stop talking past each other if you each defined what you mean by recognize.

Part of why Father Ambrose (and others) keep disagreeing with you is because no matter what Fr. Alexander et. al. personally say, the fact remains that they commemorate a bishop (or are a bishop) who commemorates the Patriarch of Moscow as their First Hierarch--and the Patriarch of Moscow does recognize the autocephaly of the OCA--for evidence one need look no further than the pictures posted here of Metropolitan Jonah's visit to Moscow where he has been received as a visiting primate.

That the MP receives Met. Jonah as a visiting primate is not in question.   What is interesting, and I think your statement below touches on this, is why the MP would enter into an agreement with ROCOR (who's Synod is based in USA) which states:

3. The supreme ecclesiastical, legislative, administrative, judicial and controlling authority in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is her Council of Bishops, convened by her Primate (First Hierarch), in accordance with the Regulations [ Polozheniye ] of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

4. The First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is elected by her Council of Bishops. This election is confirmed, in accordance with the norms of Canon Law, by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.


I added point 4 in case somebody wanted to try to assert that, according to the Act, the First Hierarch for ROCOR is the Patriarch of Moscow.   That said, don't you think point 3 infringes upon OCA autocephaly in context to ROCOR operating in the USA?

Quote
On the other hand, if what you mean by 'don't recognize' is primarily what you refer to above--that the ROCOR bishops do not have to operate in America under the strictures of the Patriarchal parishes (they don't commemorate Met. Jonah, they don't consult have to consult with the local OCA bishop before opening a new parish or taking any other administrative action in their own dioceses, etc), then I think you are obviously correct.

Indeed.  If ROCOR did recognize OCA autocephaly all of those points you mention and more, including the language in point 3 (and others) would be a violation.

Quote
To me this goes back to what I said about the reunification being handled in a pastoral manner. Rightly or wrongly, several generations of ROCOR leadership were strongly invested in *not* recognizing the legitimacy of the OCA. Simply having them (and the OCA--this actually applies to both sides) return to concelebration is already a huge step, forcing them to actually go under the authority of the OCA would have been too great a burden.

One of our bishops said that as much care needs to go into reconciling the longstanding differences between OCA and ROCOR as it did with the MP and ROCOR.

Quote
The real test is going to be the first time an OCA priest gets in trouble with his bishop/the synod and tries to pre-empt his suspension and a canonical court by leaping to ROCOR without a canonical release. For decades there was a slow but steady stream of this behavior going in both directions between the jurisdictions (which is, frankly, the proximate answer to ialmisry's original question). Given that a discipline ROCOR priest is a disciplined MP priest now, I'm fairly certain Metropolitan Jonah wouldn't take him without his bishop's permission; assuming both that I am right and that ROCOR reciprocates that position, the wounds stretching back to the Cleveland sobor might finally start to truly heal.

This is exactly what we are told is the proceedure now.  There will be no more accepting suspended priests from either side.  Not only just with the OCA but all canonical jurisdictions.

As I mentioned earlier, even without recognizing OCA autocephaly it seems there are quite good relations with her.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 07:40:05 PM by ROCORthodox » Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #39 on: May 01, 2009, 07:49:36 PM »

It is not to Arb. Hilarion to recognize the OCA, as Arb. Hilarion is not autocephalous.


Please address the ROCOR First Hierarch with his proper TITLE, not one of your imagination.  That's officially Metropolitan Hilarion to you.   
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 07:50:20 PM by ROCORthodox » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #40 on: May 01, 2009, 08:49:22 PM »

[" . . . According to the “Act on Canonical Communion,” the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is “self-governing in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property and civil matters” (par. 2). No decrees of the Synod of Bishops or Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are subject to the review or confirmation of the Holy Synod or Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, except those of a canonical nature.

It is of the utmost importance to make it clear that that your last sentence above is not part of the Act of Canonical Communion.

The text is here - the official site of the Russian Church Abroad

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html

and here - the official site of the Patriarchate

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/070517113937.htm


The part you discuss above is not MY sentence.  It belongs to these hierarchs in their official statement:

+ LAURUS,
Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York,
First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

+ Mark, Archbishop of Berlin and Germany

+ Kyrill, Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America

+ Michael, Bishop of Geneva and Western Europe

+ Gabriel, Bishop of Manhattan

+ Peter, Bishop of Cleveland

 
Irish Hermit, why don't you believe them?


You don't give the source of the statement?    This lack of references is hurting your claims.

However I direct your attention to the last phrase:

No decrees of the Synod of Bishops or Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are subject to the review or confirmation of the Holy Synod or Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, except those of a canonical nature.

If the autocephaly which Moscow granted to the OCA is not an action of a canonical nature, then what on earth is it?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #41 on: May 01, 2009, 08:49:23 PM »

[And it is within the power of the highest authority to assemble a team to negotiate with ROCOR a stipulation that she does not have to accept OCA autocephaly so the union could happen.   

This is all devolving into rumour and Chinese whispers.

Where is this "stipulation" to be read?   Was it approved by the Patriarch and Russian Synod?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #42 on: May 01, 2009, 08:49:23 PM »

What is interesting, and I think your statement below touches on this, is why the MP would enter into an agreement with ROCOR (who's Synod is based in USA) which states:

3. The supreme ecclesiastical, legislative, administrative, judicial and controlling authority in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is her Council of Bishops, convened by her Primate (First Hierarch), in accordance with the Regulations [ Polozheniye ] of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

4. The First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is elected by her Council of Bishops. This election is confirmed, in accordance with the norms of Canon Law, by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.


I added point 4 in case somebody wanted to try to assert that, according to the Act, the First Hierarch for ROCOR is the Patriarch of Moscow.   

I think you are chosing not to reveal the fact the the supreme authority of the Russian Church Abroad is....  Moscow.

Let's look at the following statutes of the Act of Canonical Communion.

9. The supreme instances of ecclesiastical authority for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are the Local Council and the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church.

10. Decisions of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church extend to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia with consideration of the particularities described by the present Act, by the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and by the legislation of the nations in which she performs her ministry.


The text is here - the official site of the Russian Church Abroad

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html

and here - the official site of the Patriarchate

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/070517113937.htm

Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #43 on: May 01, 2009, 11:35:49 PM »

That the MP receives Met. Jonah as a visiting primate is not in question.   What is interesting, and I think your statement below touches on this, is why the MP would enter into an agreement with ROCOR (who's Synod is based in USA) which states: [snip]

Indeed.  If ROCOR did recognize OCA autocephaly all of those points you mention and more, including the language in point 3 (and others) would be a violation.

I think this is where you and I differ. I agree that it would be (in fact is) a violation. I just don't think it matters.

Look, the MP clearly recognizes Metropolitan Jonah as the primate of an autocephalous synod and commemorates him as Metropolitan of North America at every liturgy. Just as clearly, the MP has authorized ROCOR to continue to act in ways that violate the OCA's autocephaly. The OCA's Tomos of Autocephaly and the ROCOR's Act of Canonical Communion are in contradiction and *cannot* reconciled. And yet the MP is clearly standing behind both.

But that's what economia is all about. You ask why the MP would enter into an agreement with ROCOR under conditions which create such a violation? Clearly, because the MP recognized ROCOR as a portion of the Russian Church which had been separated not by any matter of faith nor even, fundamentally, by a spirit of schism, but rather by the tribulations caused by the Communists, and in doing so, the MP wished to reunite the severed portions. Read St. Basil's 1st Canonical Epistle--the one from which we get the terminology 'economia'. There, St. Basil is speaking of receiving schismatics and heretics back into the Church and lists several groups that 'strictly speaking' should be received by baptism; but if the exercise of 'economia' brings them back into the Church through Chrismation then that's fine--because unity within the Church is more important. If St. Basil can say that about Baptism and heretics, then how much more so when we're talking about fully Orthodox communities rejoining over administrative canons.

Or to put it another way, the various descendants of the pre-Revolutionary Russian Church had 4 options
1) The MP normalizes relations with ROCOR and cuts the OCA loose--no violations, but replaces one separation with another
2) The MP maintains relations with OCA and ignores ROCOR--separation remains and dangerous for ROCOR's whose justification for existence in ukase 362 was fading.
3) ROCOR normalizes relationship with the MP by integrating with the OCA--given the history of the last 3 decades (which has clergy defrocked in one jurisdiction serving at the altar in the other), not going to happen
4) The MP maintains its relationship with OCA, normalizes relations with ROCOR, ignores the fact that in doing so it is supporting two contradictory documents. Communion and Concelebration are restored. The activities which have been driving the two North American groups farther apart are stopped. And someday down the road all 3 groups can get together and work out the canonical details.

Obviously, they chose #4.

Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #44 on: May 01, 2009, 11:38:37 PM »

The Protopriest doesn't read the diptychs of the autocephalous primates when he serves.  The Patriarch of Moscow in the Russian Church (including ROCOR) alone does.  And he commemorates Met. Jonah.  And he has instructed his non-ROCOR parishes in North America to commemorate Met. Jonah, including those parishes within the territory of New York and the Eastern United States.

When the Protopriest produces some official document, with bishops' names affixed and signed (in which case, they might be joining Bishop Valentine), stating that they reject the Tomos issued by the Patriarch of Moscow and the Holy Synod of the ROC to the OCA, it remains the protopriest's personal opinion, and hence of as much authority as mine.  Because he seems to be basing his authority in the same manner that you accuse Met. Platon of doing.

Well, if you see fit to claim for yourself as much authority on this matter as the protopriest who actually was a key negotiator of the Act, I think I'll choose to believe my own hierarchs and priests who confirm Fr. Alexander's explaination.

He has more knowledge, but unless priests now rank with bishops, no authority.

Quote
Have you written a letter of protest to the MP Patriarch for not speaking out against ROCOR's consistent actions in the USA which are in direct conflict to the OCA Tomos? 
Since I agree with his exercise of economia in this matter, why would I complain?
Quote
What about those bishops and priests who are saying these things you don't agree with?  Don't you think they should be punished for such long-standing and public  disobedience?
I trust Pat. Kyrill's judgement in the matter, as I trusted Pat. Alexei's of blessed memory.
Quote
The MP's silence speaks volumes.

LOL.  It doesn't take volumes: just the sentence of point 10 of ukaze 362.  

You don't need the MP's silence.

You need his confirmation.

Btw, you have never addressed this issue: if you agree with the EP, why are you not under him, but under Moscow?

Quote
The more believable scenario is that our officials are telling it like it is (which explains why things are the way they are).

So tell me, what are they telling the faithful about their primate commemorating Met. Jonah?  That's the way things are.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.235 seconds with 72 queries.